Showing posts with label Church Youth. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Church Youth. Show all posts

Sunday, November 23, 2014

"The Orthodox Church" in the West


Excellent lecture given by Fr. Alexander Schmemann in 1968 at Oberlin College. His audience was the youth and he explains how the church was and ought to grow in the context of America and the western culture! Enjoy!

____________________________________

Our purpose in meeting here at this first conference of Orthodox students is not simply to hear a few lectures, listen to a few discussions, and proclaim once more how wonderful we Orthodox are. So often at Orthodox conferences we meet in an atmosphere of triumphalism and then, returning to our parishes, find ourselves utterly confused. The official image is always that of something magnificent, but the unofficial reality is that of complaints and criticisms. What we want to do here is not shares some slogans with you, but rather to think together. None of us has brought here ready-made answers; we are here to look for a common perspective. Although we are in a very new situation in America, we often jump over the first and essential , which is simply to think together about what we must do. Too often we want solutions to problems which we have not formulated, progress towards a point which we have not yet defined, victories in battles in which we don’t know who is fighting whom. Very often we are led by leader who proclaim that they have answers to all questions and misled us. I think, therefore, that if we plan this Conference in a “low key,” as a first step toward more light — in humility, in prayer, asking God not so much what we what to do but what He wants us to do — it would be more constructive and useful for the future of our Church.
The time has come to clarify the issues, to formulate the problems which we face together, to discuss the solutions and the priorities in our existences as Orthodox in a Western country which is our county. Are we a group of exiles? Are we a spiritual and cultural ghetto to be perpetuated against all odds? Are we to dissolve ourselves here in what is called the “American way of life”? What is this American way of life?

The purpose of this introductory paper is to deal only with the fundamental framework of these questions. In my first lecture to freshmen at St. Vladimir’s Seminary, I always use the same symbol: if you have a big library and move into a new house, you can’t use that library unless you build shelves.  While it is still in boxes, you own that library, but it is of no use to you. My purpose then is to build the shelves and then to try and see what are the priorities of our Orthodox situation today.

It is impossible to speak about our situation in America unless we refer it to our normal and essential term of reference: The Orthodox Church. The Orthodox Church — whether Greek, Syrian, Serbian, Roumanian, or Bulgarian — has always been both the heart and the form of an Orthodox world.Only here in the West, and for the first time in the history of Orthodoxy, do we think of the Church in terms only of a religious institution such as a diocese, a parish, and so on. No one in organically Orthodox countries has ever thought of the Church as being distinct from the totality of life. Since the conversion of Constantine, the Church was organically related to society, culture, education, family, etc. There was no separation, no dichotomy. The Russian word for peasant is simply christian in, which at the beginning obviously meant Christian.

Here then we find the first radical difference which we have to face in America: we belong to the Orthodox Church but we do not belong to an Orthodox culture. This is the first and the most important change and unless we understand that this is not an academic proposition, but the real framework of our existence, we will not see clearly through our situation. For everything in the Orthodox Church points toward a way of life; the Church is connected to all aspects of life. Yet we are deprived of this connection because, upon leaving our churches on Sunday morning, we return to a culture which was not produced, shaped, or inspired by the Orthodox Church and which, therefore, in a way is deeply alien to Orthodoxy.

The first Orthodox immigrants in America never thought about all this for in many ways they continued to live within an organic Orthodox “culture.” They were still living with that type of unity because they belonged to what in American sociology is know as a sub-culture. After the liturgy, Russians or Greeks would meet in the church hall as they would meet not only as Orthodox but as Russians or Greeks or Bukovenians or Carpatho-Russians and they would meet precisely in order to breathe their native culture. At the beginning, all this was completely normal. Even today you can live in certain places as if you were not living in America. You can live there without knowing too much English, without any real contact with American culture. But whether we like it or not, that “immigrant” chapter of our history is coming to an end and this is where your generation comes in. You do not have an immigrant mentality. Orthodoxy for you is not primarily the remembrance of childhood abroad. You will not keep Orthodoxy simply because it is “the faith of your fathers.” Suppose we apply this principle to others: then the Lutherans should keep the Lutheran faith, the Jews the Jewish faith, and finally the son of an atheist should keep atheism because it was the “faith of his father.” If this is the criterion, religion becomes a mere cultural continuity. But our claim is that our Church is Orthodox, or, more simply, the Church, and this is a frightening claim. It implies that it is the faith for all men, for all countries, for all cultures. And unless this implication is kept in mind and heart, our claim to be the true or Orthodox Church becomes hypocrisy and it would be more honest to call ourselves a society for the perpetuation of the cultural values of a particular geographical region.

Our faith cannot be reduced to religious practices and customs alone. It claims the entire life of man. But the culture in which we live, the “American way of life,” is something which already existed when we come here and thus we find ourselves an Eastern Church  with a total claim on our life, yet living within a Western society and a Western way of life. The first problem then can be formulated very simply, although its solution is extremely difficult: How are we to combine these things? How can we live our Orthodox faith which claims the totality of our existence within a culture which also claims to shape our existence? This is the antimony of our situation; this is where all our difficulties are rooted. Yet unless we understand it, we will always have wrong solutions. These wrong solutions –quite popular today– follow two basic patterns. I will call one pattern a “neurotic” Orthodoxy. It is the attitude of those who, whether they are native Orthodox or converts, decide that cannot be Orthodox unless they simply reject American culture, who build their spiritual home in some romantic and idealized Byzantium or Russia, and who constantly curse America and decadent Western society. “Western,” “American” are here synonyms with “evil” and “demonic.” This extreme position gives a semblance of security; ultimately, however, it is self-destructive. It is certainly not the attitude of St. John who, in the midst of a violent persecution, said so simply: “…and this is the victory which overcomes the world, our faith.”; and who also said: “There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear: because fear has torment.” (I John 4:18) Here, however, Orthodoxy is transformed into an apocalyptic fear which has always led to sectarianism, hatred, and spiritual death.

The other dangerous pattern is that of an almost pathological “Americanism.” There are people who, when they hear in church on word in Russian or Greek, react as if it were a betrayal of Christ. It is the opposite of neurosis, the neurosis of those who want Orthodoxy to become American immediately.
It the first neurosis, Orthodoxy is reduced to a fanatical and negativistic sect; in the second one, America is falsified, for America is not at all a country which requires surrender, conformity, and the acceptance of the main-street mentality as the “American way of life.” What makes this country great and indeed unique is precisely the openness of its culture to change. And who knows whether it may not be the real mission of Orthodoxy in America to change the American culture which has never really been challenged by a different set of values. No doubt Orthodoxy has an understanding of man, life, world, nature, etc., radically different from those prevailing in American culture but this difference itself is a challenge for Orthodoxy rather than a justification for withdrawal, negativism, and fear. To avoid two extremes, to be truly Orthodox yet fully American — such seems to be the only real Orthodox tradition. How and where do we then begin?

I said already that I have no ready-made answers; I have only a few thoughts which I would like to share with you — a few thoughts about the conditions which may set us on the difficult way. One of the great dangers of modern, and especially American, culture is its reduction of man to history and to change. Since everything by definition is changing, the basic values which shape man’s life are also subject to change and none is absolute. This is the first thing which we Orthodox have to denounce and resist. We must openly confess that there are things which do not change, that human nature in fact does not change, that such realities as sin, or righteousness, or holiness do not depend on the changing patterns of the culture. How many times have I heard, for example, that in “our age” the concept of sin must be changed if it is to be relevant to the modern man. How many times we have heard that in “our age” we cannot speak of the Devil. Yet I am absolutely convinced that sin is exactly the same for me as it was for St. Paul and that if there is no Devil, Christianity is no longer the same religion it was for nearly two thousand years. It is not enough to speak, as some Western theologians do, of the “demonic.” It is not enough to identify sin with alienation. And is at this point that Orthodoxy has a tremendous responsibility, for  it is fundamentally the belief in unchanging realities, it is the denunciation of all “reductions” as not only doctrinally wrong, but existentially destructive.

Thus the first condition for anything else is simply faith. Before anything else is possible, before I can speak of myself as belonging to this or that generation, as immigrant or native, of our age as technological or post-industrial, etc., there is this one fundamental reality: man standing before God and finding that life is communion with Him, knowledge of him, faith in Him, that we are created literally for God. Without this experience and affirmation, nothing has meaning. My real life is in God and in heaven. I was created for eternity. These simple affirmations are rejected as naive and irrelevant today, and in spite of all its Christian terminology, Western Christianity becomes more and more a man-centered humanism. At this point, no compromise is possible and everything depends on whether Orthodoxy will remain faithful to its God-centeredness, to its orientation toward the Transcendent, the Eternal, the Divine.

We do not deny that men need justice and bread. But before everything else they need God. Thus, we truly can do what we are called to in spite of all temptations. The seemingly “charitable” character of these temptations is not only to proclaim or to defend but first of all to live this unchanging, eternal, hierarchy of values in which God and God alone is the beginning, the content, and the end of everything. This is the real content of the Orthodox faith, of our liturgy, of our sacraments. This is what we celebrate on Easter Night. This is what is revealed at the Eucharistic Table. It is always the same thing, the same prayer, the same joy: “Thy Kingdom come… .” It is the understanding of life as indeed preparation, not simply for an eternal rest but for the life which is more real than anything else — a life of which this life is but a “symbol” and a “sacrament.”

I can hear and sense the reaction: “Oh, again paradise and hell; is that Christianity? Can this be the answer preached in the 20th century?” And I will answer: “Yes it is. Yes it can.” It is because so many people today have forgotten this, it is because all this has become “irrelevant” for Christians themselves, that so many are in hell already. And Orthodoxy will lose all its salt if each one of us does not strive first of all for this personal faith and for this hunger for salvation, redemption, and deification. Christianity begins only when we take seriously the words of Christ: “Seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness; and all things shall be added unto you.” (Matt 6:33)

But now let me share with you my second preliminary thought. Just as each one of us must discover for himself the “unchanging” and take part in the same, never-ending spiritual fight, we must discover ourselves as belonging to one particular generation of Orthodox Christians living in the 20th Century in America in a secular and pluralistic culture and in the midst of a great spiritual crisis. What can we do together? What are the Orthodox imperatives for our common and corporate task? I think that here the priorities are rather clear, especially when one speaks to students and for students, for “student” is today the purest representative of what I call the second Orthodoxy in America. The first one — whether he came from the “old world” or was born here — is still and immigrant in his mentality. He lives within American culture but is not yet an organic part of it. A student is by definition someone who can and must reflect. So far Orthodoxy in America has not reflected upon itself and upon its situation here. The Orthodox student is the first Orthodox who is called to reflect on his life as an Orthodox in America and on this reflection depends the future of our Church here, for this reflection will obviously be aimed at the problems which I mentioned at the beginning of this talk. So this is a crucial task. You will say either yes or no for the entire Orthodox Church on this continent.

To say yes, however means to rediscover the Church as mission, and mission within our present situation means something more than simply converting individuals to Orthodoxy. It means primarily an evaluation of American culture in Orthodox terms and this is the real mission of the Orthodox “intelligentsia,” for no one else can do that. It is here that i must stress again the fundamental quality of American culture: its openness to criticism and change, to challenge and judgment. Throughout the whole American history, Americans always asked: What does it mean to be American? What is America for? And they are still asking these questions. Here is our chance, and here is our duty.

The evaluation of American culture is Orthodox terms requires first a knowledge of Orthodoxy, and second the knowledge of the true American culture and tradition. One cannot evaluate that which one does not know, love and understand. Our mission, therefore, is first of all one of education. We — all of us– must become theologians, not in the technical sense of the word but in terms of vital interest, concern, care for our faith, and above everything else in terms of a relationship between faith and life, faith and culture, faith and “the American way of life.” Let me give you one example. We all know of that one of the deepest crises of our culture, of the entire modern world, is the crisis of family and the man-woman relationship. I would ask then: How can this crisis be related to and understood in terms of our belief in the One who is “more honorable than the cherubim and beyond compare more glorious than the seraphim…,” the Theotokos, the Mother of God, the Virgin? Is this belief a beautiful part of our liturgical celebrations, or a revelation of the mystery of love? Can this unique mystery of Mariology be truly “applied” as judgment, as healing, as Truth — to the confusion and chaos created by Freud and his followers? The knowledge of Orthodoxy thus is not a “part” of the corresponding progress of our American way of life but a key to it, a way of understanding and evaluation.

Where all this will lead us, I do not know. In the words of a hymn of Cardinal Newman: “I do not see the distant scene, one step enough for me.” But I know that between the two extremes — that of a surrender toAmerica, that of a surrender of America — we must find then narrow and the difficult way of the true Orthodox Tradition. No solution will ever be final, and there is no final solution in “this world.” We shall always live in tension and conflict, in the rhythm of victory and defeat. Yet if the Puritans could have had such a tremendous impact on American culture, if Sigmund Freud could change it so deeply as to send to generations of Americans to the psychoanalytical couch, if Marxism, in spite of all its phenomenal failures, can still inspire presumably intelligent American intellectuals, why can’t the faith and the doctrine which we clam to be the true faith and the true doctrine have its chance? “O ye of little faith…” Marx and Freud never doubted and won their vicious victories. The modern Christian, however, has a built-in inferiority complex. One historical defeat pushes him either into an apocalyptic fear and panicking or “death of God” theologies. The time has come, maybe, simply to recover our faith and apply it with love and humility to the land which has become ours. And who can do that if not those who are given a full share of American culture?

To sum up, two things are essential: first the strengthening of our personal faith and commitment. Whether priest or layman, man or woman, the first thing for an Orthodox is not to speak about Orthodoxy, but to live it to his full capacity; it is prayer, it is standing before God, it is the difficult joy of experiencing “heaven on earth.” This is the first thing and it cannot be reached without effort, fasting, asceticism, without sacrifice and the discovery of that which in the Gospel is called the “narrow way.” And then, to use a most abused word: a deep and real dialogue with America — not accommodation, not a compromise, for a dialogue may indeed be violent. If nothing else, it will achieve two things: it will reveal to us what is real and genuine in our faith and what is mere decoration. We may, indeed, lose all kinds of decorations which we erroneously take for Orthodoxy itself. What will remain is exactly the  faith which overcomes the world! And then in that dialogue we will discover the true America, not the America which so many Orthodox curse and so many idolize, but the America of that great hunger for God and His righteousness which has always underlain the genuine American culture. The more I live here, the more I believe that the encounter between Orthodoxy and America is a providential one. And because it is Providential, it is being attacked, misunderstood, denied, rejected on both sides. Maybe it is for the handful of Orthodox students on American campuses to understand its real meaning and to act accordingly.

Tuesday, May 6, 2014

The Search for Truth-How Should Orthodox Christians relate to Philosophy Today?

The following is a blog entry written by Samuel Kaldas. Sam is Coptic youth currently study in Sydney Australia and if the title of the blog did not give it away his major is Philosophy. I have been in communication with Sam for over a year and our dialogues and close friendship have developed fruitful dialogues about many things ranging from church topics to philosophy topics to talks about Father Matthew the Poor or just nonsense talks about the most silliest things you can think off. Sam currently has begun a blog called This Great Mystery and he has build a team around him who constantly write and post on this blog. Thank you for sharing this Sam and if anyone else would like to write on the blog you can get a hold off me anytime! Thank you! Enjoy.
___________________________________

Philosophy is simpler than it sounds. Really. It’s so simple, in fact, that children tend to do very good philosophy with no formal training. For one, children tend to ask a lot why questions - to the point that it can become annoying. Even at university levels, philosophy never really becomes much more than a very formal, systematic and professional way of dealing with the kinds of questions that children ask: Why can’t I do that? Who am I exactly? Does my dog have feelings like I do? How do I know that you’re a real person and not just a robot?

To practically minded people, philosophy can look like a waste of time. It doesn’t have many practical applications: no philosopher will ever get to watch their work curing cancer or making cars faster. But the questions philosophers ask aren’t simply idle curiosities, with no relevance to the real world. On the contrary, it could be argued that philosophy has a greater influence on the real world than any branch of science or engineering. Why? Because philosophy attempts to answer the questions that give meaning to every other aspect of human life: What’s the point of life? What is a human being? Do we have free will? What is truth? What is right and wrong? Is there a God? A culture’s answers to those questions will tell you what kind of people they are; in a very real sense, philosophy is the measure of a society’s soul. Other disciplines can make things bigger, better and faster, but only philosophy is concerned with what we ought to do with our ever-growing power.

Clearly, philosophy is important. But let’s be frank: philosophy makes a lot of Copts nervous. If you’ve studied philosophy and mentioned that fact at church, you’ve no doubt heard things like, “I don’t know man, the last guy I knew who studied philosophy became an atheist,” or “Be careful, don’t get pulled in.” And to be fair, philosophy’s reputation as a ‘dangerous’ subject isn’t totally underserved. Philosophy is one of the only academic disciplines which demands that you put everything you believe on the line, including your beliefs about God, human purpose and meaning. No-one cares what engineers or doctors do on a Sunday or what they believe about right or wrong, so long as their religious beliefs don’t impact their work. In philosophy however, you’re required to justify all your beliefs, including and especially religious ones, and pit them against a host of other beliefs all vying for your attention. That has caught many a young Christian off-guard. It doesn’t help that although things vary from college to college, philosophy tutors and lecturers at secular universities can often be critical of religion.



So what are we to do? Does the hostile climate of contemporary philosophy mean that Christians ought to stay right away? As Orthodox Christians, we’re used to looking to the early church for guidance; and when it comes to the question of how Christians ought to relate to philosophy, the early church has some very interesting things to say indeed. One particularly helpful example, I think, is the story of St. Basil and St. Gregory - the authors of the two most frequently used Coptic liturgies. It’s a little known fact that these two saints became good friends long before either them were ordained, and that they first met at university. Not a Christian university, but the ‘secular’ (‘pagan’ might be more accurate) university of Athens, where they studied philosophy.

The intellectual climate at the Athenian university back then was no less hostile to Christianity than it is today.  In fact, it was hostile to pretty much everyone. If modern universities are ‘marketplaces of ideas’, the Athenian university in Basil’s time was the ‘battlefield of ideas’; the rivalries between professors and competing schools of thought were extremely heated, and frequently broke out into very real violence (Wenzel 2010). New students were particularly vulnerable: a pagan called Libanius was once welcomed to the university by being kept against his will in a small room until he agreed to attend only the lectures of his captors’ teacher. This kind of thing doesn’t seem to have been uncommon. Remembering his school days, St. Gregory would later say of the Athenian students: “They are just like men devoted to horses and exhibitions, as we see, at the horse-races; they leap, they shout, raise clouds of dust, they drive in their seats, they beat the air …” (Orat. 43, Ch. 15) The philosophy classes of Athens were hardly friendly places.

But that didn’t dissuade either saint from entering the fray. Many years later, at St. Basil’s funeral, St. Gregory praised his friend for having emerged from this clamour of conflicting opinions and deceitful rhetoricians as a humble but powerful Christian voice:

“… as to what he was to his masters, what he was to his classmates, equalling the former, surpassing the latter in every form of culture, what renown he won in a short time from all, both of the common people, and of the leaders of the state; by showing both a culture beyond his years, and a steadfastness of character beyond his culture. An orator among orators, even before the chair of the rhetoricians, a philosopher among philosophers, even before the doctrines of philosophers … So much deference was paid to him in every respect by all.” (Orat. 43, Ch. 13)

The intellectual and social world at Athens was deeply hostile to Christianity, and yet, with the help and guidance of Christian teachers (Ch. 21), the two young saints were not only able to keep their faith alive throughout their time there, they even strengthened it. Their peers may not have agreed with them, but they respected them as ‘philosophers among philosophers, even before the doctrines of philosophers.’

So why exactly would St. Gregory and St. Basil would persevere through such a hostile environment? Probably, they had realised for themselves something that St. Clement of Alexandria had argued centuries earlier. “Philosophy,” said St. Clement, “is characterized by investigation into truth and the nature of things (this is the truth of which the Lord Himself said, “I am the truth”).” Philosophy, ancient and modern, hostile or not, is always the search for truth. And for Christians, Christ is the truth, which makes philosophy nothing more than the search for Christ. St. Gregory described his friendship with St. Basil as growing chiefly because of their united commitment to philosophy: “… as time went on, we acknowledged our mutual affection, and that philosophy was our aim, we were all in all to one another, housemates, messmates, intimates, with one object in life, or an affection for each other ever growing warmer and stronger.” (Ch. 19) For these saints, as for many of the Church Fathers, philosophy was a fundamentally Christian activity; St. Clement even went so far as to say that philosophy was to the Greeks like the Law was to the Jews (Stromata 1.5). To the Christian, any search for truth can only lead to Christ.

There are many more examples of ancient Christian philosophers: from St. Justin the Martyr to Pope Peter of Alexandria, and even St. Paul the Apostle who debated with the philosophers in the Athens long before St. Basil and St. Gregory would arrive there three centuries later (Acts 17:15-34). And fortunately, there’s no shortage of contemporary Christian philosophers either; St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press just published a book (Turning East - see below) featuring interviews with sixteen Orthodox Christian philosophers, many of whom don’t teach at Christian universities.

None of this is to deny that philosophy can be extremely difficult, and even dangerous when done badly - it’s certainly not everyone’s cup of tea, and all students of philosophy, including the Christian ones, absolutely must be skeptical and discerning with their teachers and peers. But budding Orthodox philosophers need more than warnings and horror stories: they need teachers like St. Basil and St. Gregory who can enter the confusing din of conflicting voices and and emerge as humble and respected ‘philosophers among philosophers.’ What’s more, they need to be trusted to enter that din themselves, because even though He might be hard to hear amidst all the angry voices, Christ is in that din too.

+++++
Further reading/Bibliography:

“What is Philosophy?’’, Florida State University Website: <http://philosophy.fsu.edu/content/view/full/36588>.

St. Gregory’s Funeral Oration for St. Basil (Orat. 43), (esp. Ch. 11 and Ch’s 15-22) - <http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/310243.htm>.

St. Clement’s Stromata - Book 1, Ch’s 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 - <http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/02101.htm>.

Also: “Clement of Alexandria: The Original Christian Philosopher” by Mark Moussa - <http://www.coptic.net/articles/clementofalexandria.txt>.

St. Justin Martyr’s First Apology, Ch’s 2-3 <http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0126.htm>.

St. Basil’s Address to the Youth on the Right Use of Pagan Literature, <http://www.ccel.org/ccel/pearse/morefathers/files/basil_litterature01.htm>.

“Turning East: Contemporary Philosophers and the Ancient Christian Faith”, SVS Press - <http://www.svspress.com/turning-east-contemporary-philosophers-and-the-ancient-christian-faith/>.


Wenzel, A. (2010). “Libanius, Gregory of Nazianzus, and the Ideal of Athens in Late Antiquity” in Journal of Late Antiquity. Vol. 3, Number 2, Fall 2010.

Sunday, September 8, 2013

Woe to the Church


"Oh, how great is this trial which Christ entered into with Satan and conquered for us! The Church should never desire rule or ownership on earth. Woe to the church that possesses much! Woe to the church that has numerous investments stored away in the national and central banks, only to be eaten away by the moth. Woe to the church whose assets are large while her poor are hungry! Woe to the church which owns many ares and buildings but has no poor eating at her table! But blessed is the church which is satisfied with Christ the Word, and gives daily from her riches, that the people might claim ownership with her in heaven-possessions which cannot be buried, pass away, or perish. They are preserved for the last day. Blessed be the Lord Jesus Christ, who gained for us this third victory, and granted us to be poor on the outside; but we are rich with possessions greater than all the stuff of this world".

Father Matthew the Poor, Words for our Time, page 120 (chapter entitled: The Temptation of our Lord).

The church is a place that stands outside of time gathering together the elect in the body of Christ. In the wisdom of Father Alexander Schmemann he spoke "Religion is needed where there is a wall of separation between God and man. But Christ who is both God and man has broken down the wall between man and God. He has inaugurated a new life, not a new religion". Religion as we know it had ceased to exist with the incarnation of Christ. Christ has become for us the example of what it means to become gods. Christ is our example and mediator of what it means to live a life in Christ (cf. 1 Tim 2.5-6). If Christ, having become our mediator, has given up his life for the world than we to must give up our lives for the world. Entering the church, receiving the Eucharist and the life we live within the church is a sacrifice, a death on its own in the body of Christ. However, this death has become for us life. We enter the baptismal font dying in our corrupt nature and being born new in the body of Christ. This great paradox was first witnessed by Christ whom having died on the cross received new life when he had risen from the dead. We then live in the joy of the resurrection because it is in the resurrected Lord that we have hope in the life to come.

I began this blog entry by offering a quote on the church from Father's Matthew's new book. Its bold, scary yet edifying. Father Matthew was a man who spoke greatly about the preservation of the church. Sadly, what we seeing happening today, and I witness this a whole lot, the church has become a place of comfort or a social club to be more direct. The body of Christ is broken and shattered with the notion of multiple liturgies which splits up the community at large. We forget the true purpose of what it means to part of a church community. It brings me great grief during the liturgy when we offer the kiss of peace, the congregation giving the kiss of peace to each other does not even know who they are offering it to. How can we offer the kiss of peace (done out of love for the person standing next to us) if we do not know the person standing next to us. At this point the church ceases to be a church and has become nothing more than an institution or as Fr. Alexander puts it a "religion". The church then begins to cater to the people of the community and completely neglects the poor. "Woe to the church which owns many ares and buildings but has no poor eating at her table!" The church from its very establishment was meant to be a mission. The church was the mission for the life of the world. Spreading the words of the gospel to all nations baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. Can we say this is reflective of our community? Can we walk into a church today and see those great nations in our churches or do we just see one specific ethnic group whom the church caters to and forgets that aspect of mission. Do not take my words for it. I challenge all to walk into any church and see what the make up of the church is. These walls that we have created for ourselves need to be broken down in order to bring all in Christ. If Christ is not present then the church is not united in the body of Christ. How can the church continue being a mission if Christ is not present? However, Father Matthew and Father Alexander do not stop at criticizing the church for this reason but instead continue on by offering the solution to his dilemma. The solution is and always has been Christ!

What did Father Alexander mean when he said Christ has brought us new life and not a religion? Father Alexander shows us that in order to be a Christian is not shown in how you speak or write but rather in how you live. A true Christian is the one who lives in the world and is engaged by it. This is why prayer, liturgy and everything that the church teaches us is meant to become a sacrifice for the life of the world. Prayer is not an isolated concept only done in church or at the comfort at your home but rather prayer becomes a lived aspect within your entire life. If prayer is lived out in the world then the true Christian will be able to engage the world and people will see Christ in him or her. By seeing Christ in others we are then able to appreciate the beauty and goodness in others. Instead of always focusing on the negative we are able to see the good in everyone because all creation is good given to us by God for God is good. This is what it means to bring the life of the church into the world. By constantly living out the words of Christ Christianity ceases to become a religion and another institution but it becomes the life for the world. If the church is able to bring Christ to the world then it will truly have the poor eating at its tables. It will truly have servants dedicated and wanting to serve. If Christ is the starting point, if the body and blood of Christ is the starting point this life can be achieved in the world. However, if we continue to show the world that Christianity is a religion of do's and dont's then we will continue to lose our youth to Atheism and other religions which can present themselves better than Christianity. However, if we show the world the bread of life then this is when the world will truly see Christ as the offering for the life of the world.

I will conclude with a story. A friend of mine at the seminary was talking to me about Christianity in America. Knowing my background as a Copt he boldly told me that all of American would be Christian Orthodox if only the church broke down all its cultural barriers that keep Americans away from the church. To my surprise I looked at him dead in the eyes saying I agree. We need to continue to strive to bring Christ to the world in order that people can see that the true bread of life lies within the church and not within the materialistic world. The church needs to stop being a social club and start opening its doors to all nations baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. It is only then when all of the world will become Christian. However, the more we cater to those who are comfortable , have the faith and continue building big churches the more these big churches will just lose its members to the world that offers only instant gratification and not Christ.    

"...blessed is the church which is satisfied with Christ the Word, and gives daily from her riches, that the people might claim ownership with her in heaven-possessions which cannot be buried, pass away, or perish. They are preserved for the last day. Blessed be the Lord Jesus Christ, who gained for us this third victory, and granted us to be poor on the outside; but we are rich with possessions greater than all the stuff of this world".

As a final remark I recommend this new book by Father Matthew the Poor. Essentially it is his teachings he gave in Arabic translates by James Helmy. An excellent read and aimed at a wide audience. Father Matthew had a gift that was able to touch the hearts of many and will always be remembered as the greatest church father of the 20th century. 

Tuesday, August 13, 2013

Liturgical Experience


Last week I was speaking to my father about the progression of the church from the 1st century to the modern times. We concluded that the beauty of the church is not about how "it has stayed the same", which it has, but rather the progression of the faith throughout the century has made the church what is it today. Many complain that the church is out of date and that 3 hour liturgies need to be dropped. I would challenge such an idea and ask the question since when did 3 hour liturgies ever remain the same? In the early church celebrating the Eucharist probably took less than an hour however, the fellowship spent at the church house probably lasted the whole day. Liturgy should then not be viewed as an "3 hour service" but liturgy should be taken in as the service of love. Liturgy lived for the life of the world is the liturgy that people can see Christ in us. By seeing Christ and seeing the love we live by then Christ becomes the ever present reality for the life of the world. Liturgy by definition is the ever lasting work of the people. It is not about a priest doing a few funny things in front of the holy of holies but it is the work of the people coming together in the body of Christ to fulfilled the commandment of Christ. To go out to the rest of the world and to preach the word of Christ baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. In the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom the priest always recites "Your own of your own we offer unto you, on behalf of all and for all". The work of the people is the liturgy that is lived for the life of the world. The following is a nice passage I came across from a book I was reading that relates the message of the progression of the liturgy. Enjoy. 

_____________________________

Liturgical Experience
'During divine service be trustful, as a child trusts his parents. [...] Cast all your care upon the Lord [...]; "Take no thought how or what ye shall speak: for it shall be given you in the same hour what ye shall speak. For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father, which speaketh in you." Long ago has the Lord freed us from this care, having by His Spirit taught the Church what to say, how to pray, at divine service." Such an attitude to the worship of our Church does not stem from conservatism.

Nor were the Church's hymnographers inspired by the principle of newness. New elements do not come into Orthodox worship from any feeling that past forms are stale, but for positive reasons:
  • 1) Teaching - for example when heresy threatened, or a Feast was instituted to focus more specifically on an event such as Christ's birth.
  • 2) New events, such as a saint's canonisation or a miraculous deliverance.
  • 3) An aspect of life is made the subject of common prayers - for instance, the environment, or a child's beginning school.
  • 4) Local celebrations and adaptations are more widely adopted.
  • 5) God inspired the composition and its insertion without any previous pastoral decision giving rise to it.

Orthodox teenagers were speaking disparagingly about forms of worship they had experienced at an ecumenical service.
Girl: 'They even had guitars in church.'
Another girl: 'We had to sing - and mime! - a "harvest" thanksgiving chorus about MacDonald's hamburgers!' [I was treated to a rendition.] 
S.M.: 'I'd feel an idiot singing that in a church! But be careful to get your reasons for being so scathing right! At least they were thanking God, singing about Christ. That's quite something nowadays. You can glorify God by a guitar. Or just enjoy it anyway, there's no sin in that. The really important point is not that it was laughably corny, but that it is a mistake to keep adapting the Liturgy, to replace inspired services. It is not wrong in itself to add another means of worshipping for other moments.'
Girl: 'The girls at school don't want it; the teachers make it up to try and be up to date.' 
S.M.: 'Yes, to "keep the young people in Church". C.S. Lewis says, "If something is not eternal, it is eternally out of date." Look at the rock charts. By the time you compose a service based on this week's style and get it approved by a liturgical committee  you'll be ages behind the fashion and have to start again. And there's no guarantee you're inspiring truth about God. It is not a service tested by centuries of praying saints. I'd rather struggle to pray like St. John Chrysostom myself. It's more sure. And it will take me a lifetime to get all I can out of it. The things that don't matter so much can change week by week.'
The saints who expressed reservations about elaborated hymnography in comparison with monologistic prayer (monologistic means concentrated in a short phrase; the Jesus prayer is the most widely practised of this type) were not rebels. Some ascetics live at such a depth of prayer that they have less need of liturgical richness. For the rest of humanity, the forms of our public services take people in a positive direction, freeing their minds from heterogeneous preoccupations. Common worship is also valuable as means of uniting with others in prayer. Athonite monks are taught that even thought prayer in the cell can go deeper than prayer in the church, monks who conclude that it is therefore better to skip the services will not gain grace in their cells.

+ Sister Magdalen of Essex, "Conversations with Children: Communicating our Faith," (Essex: Stavropegic Monastery of St John the Baptist, 2004) 194-6. ISBN 1 874679 21 5

Friday, April 19, 2013

Presenting the Liturgy to our Children

I came across a blog entry that I thought had to be blogged again because it presents how we can present the liturgy to our children. The following is the link to the original blog: 
"Making the Liturgy more "relatable" is the opposite direction one should take in presenting the Church to your child. Holiness speaks to a separation from the things of this world that distract us from God. Using cultural distractions to encourage participation in the services of the Church muddles this reality. If what we should be seeking after is packaged in a secular pop-culture medium a false equality and connection is made in the minds of our children that life in the Church is just another way to pass the time. Making the Way into a video game, a music video, or any other trivial entertainment serves to undermine and not reinforce your child's faith. The hard lesson that evangelical efforts to grow the Church through making it more "relevant" have been learned over and over at the expense of tradition and with little to show for it beyond empty coffers, infrequent attendance, and a "spiritual but not religious" ethos.

The Liturgy is best presented as a constant walking towards the transcendant where His people gather in reverence and anticipation of His imminent return. A child that sees himself as someone in service to a thing not only much greater than he, but also something that can transform him into the man God would have him be through service to His Church, is a child that will grow in faith and love of the Lord. "
"You may, being teachers, be interested to know how we teach our faith. Well, I could put it in a nut-shell by saying, badly, because if what I have said in the beginning makes any sense to you, it is not by making children to learn doctrinal formularies or formal prayers or any such thing that you make a person into a Christian or an Orthodox. He must be introduced into an experience. And an experience can be caught as one catches the flu, it is an infection, it’s not something which can be conveyed in a sterile manner. So that what we expect is that in the family people should have a sense of worship. I do not mean, do special things. It’s not by praying before a meal or not praying before a meal that one conveys a sense of a sacredness of the event, but I remember one of our young theologians saying, “Everything in life is an act of love divine even the food, which we eat, is divine love that has become edible.” And if the food is prepared with love, if it is served with beauty, if it is shared with reverence, if it is treated as a gift of God, a miracle, and for people of my generation and that of my parents this attitude is easy because we have gone so often without any food and in hunger, that really a peace of bread or any form of food is an act of God or an act of human love. So that is an example. The same could be applied to everything which is the life of the home — the way parents treat children and children treat parents."
+ Metropolitan Anthony Bloom,  http://masarchive.org/Sites/texts/1900-00-00-0-E-E-T-EN05-023Othodoxy.html

Monday, March 18, 2013

Spiritual High: Why Youths are Abandoning the Church


I was recently reading a blog entry from Practical Orthodox Spirituality looking at 10 different reasons why kids (youths or anyone for that matter) leave the church. Here is the list provided with the 10 points and a few bullet points explaining each point. It was quite interesting to read because this applies to all churches Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant churches...scary...  

10. The Church is "Relevant"

You didn’t misread that, I didn’t say irrelevant, I said RELEVANT. We’ve taken a historic, 2,000 year old faith, dressed it in plaid and skinny jeans and tried to sell it as “cool” to our kids. It’s not cool. It’s not modern. What we’re packaging is a cheap knockoff of the world we’re called to evangelize.

As the quote says, “When the ship is in the ocean, everything’s fine. When the ocean gets into the ship, you’re in trouble.”

I’m not ranting about “worldliness” as some pietistic bogeyman, I’m talking about the fact that we yawn at a 5-minute biblical text, but almost trip over ourselves fawning over a minor celebrity or athlete who makes any vague reference to being a Christian.

We’re like a fawning wanna-be just hoping the world will think we’re cool too, you know, just like you guys!

Our kids meet the real world and our “look, we’re cool like you” posing is mocked. In our effort to be “like them” we’ve become less of who we actually are. The middle-aged pastor trying to look like his 20-something audience isn’t relevant. Dress him up in skinny jeans and hand him a latte, it doesn’t matter. It’s not relevant, It’s comically cliché. The minute you aim to be “authentic”, you’re no longer authentic!

9. They never attend church to begin with:

From a Noah’s Ark themed nursery, to jumbotron summer-campish kids church, to pizza parties and rock concerts, many evangelical youth have been coddled in a not-quite-church, but not-quite-world hothouse. They’ve never sat on a pew between a set of new parents with a fussy baby and a senior citizen on an oxygen tank. They don’t see the full timeline of the gospel for every season of life. Instead, we’ve dumbed down the message, pumped up the volume and act surprised when

8. They get smart:

It’s not that our students “got smarter” when they left home, rather someone actually treated them as intelligent. Rather than dumbing down the message, the agnostics and atheists treat our youth as intelligent and challenge their intellect with “deep thoughts” of question and doubt. Many of these “doubts” have been answered, in great depth, over the centuries of our faith. However….

7. You send them out unarmed:

Let’s just be honest, most of our churches are sending youth into the world embarrassingly ignorant of our faith. How could we not? We’ve jettisoned catechesis, sold them on “deeds not creeds” and encouraged them to start the quest to find “God’s plan for their life”. Yes, I know your church has a “What we believe” page, but is that actually being taught and reinforced from the pulpit? I’ve met evangelical church leaders (“Pastors”) who didn’t know the difference between justification and sanctification. I’ve met megachurch board members who didn’t understand the atonement. When we chose leaders based upon their ability to draw and lead rather than to accurately teach the faith? Well, we don’t teach the faith. Surprised? And instead of the orthodox, historic faith…..

6. You gave them hand-me-downs:

You’ve tried your best to pass along the internal/subjective faith that you “feel”. You really, really, really want them to “feel” it too. But we’ve never been called to evangelize our feelings. You can’t hand down this type of subjective faith. With nothing solid to hang their faith upon, with no historic creed to tie them to centuries of history, without the physical elements of bread, wine, and water, their faith is in their subjective feelings, and when faced with other ways to “feel” uplifted at college, the church loses out to things with much greater appeal to our human nature. And they find it in…

5. Community (the other community):

Have you noticed this word is *everywhere* in the church since the seeker-sensitive and church growth movements came onto the scene? (There’s a reason and a driving philosophy behind it which is outside of the scope of this blog.) When our kids leave home, they leave the manufactured community they’ve lived in for nearly their entire life. With their faith as something they “do” in community, they soon find that they can experience this “life change” and “life improvement” in “community” in many different contexts. Mix this with a subjective, pragmatic faith and the 100th pizza party at the local big-box church doesn’t compete against the easier, more naturally appealing choices in other “communities”. So, they left the church and….

4. They found better feelings:

Rather than an external, objective, historical faith, we’ve given our youth an internal, subjective faith. The evangelical church isn’t catechizing or teaching our kids the fundamentals of the faith, we’re simply encouraging them to “be nice” and “love Jesus”. When they leave home, they realize that they can be “spiritually fulfilled” and get the same subjective self-improvement principles (and warm-fuzzies) from the latest life-coach or from spending time with friends or volunteering at a shelter. And they can be truly authentic, and they jump at the chance because…

3. They got tired of pretending:

In the “best life now”, “Every day a Friday” world of evangelicals, there’s little room for depression, or struggle, or doubt. Turn that frown upside down, or move along. Kids who are fed a stead diet of sermons aimed at removing anything (or anyone) who doesn’t pragmatically serve “God’s great plan for your life” has forced them to smile and, as the old song encouraged them be “hap-hap-happy all the time”. Our kids are smart, often much smarter than we give them credit for. So they trumpet the message I hear a lot from these kids. “The church is full of hypocrites”. Why? Even though they have never been given the categories of law and gospel

2. They know the truth:

They can’t do it. They know it. All that “be nice” moralism they’ve been taught? The bible has a word for it: Law. And that’s what we’ve fed them, undiluted, since we dropped them off at the Noah’s Ark playland: Do/Don’t Do. As they get older it becomes “Good Kids do/don’t” and as adults “Do this for a better life”. The gospel appears briefly as another “do” to “get saved.” But their diet is Law, and scripture tells us that the law condemns us. So that smiling, upbeat “Love God and Love People” vision statement? Yeah, you’ve just condemned the youth with it. Nice, huh? They either think that they’re “good people” since they don’t “do” any of the stuff their denomination teaches against (drink, smoke, dance, watch R rated movies), or they realize that they don’t meet Jesus own words of what is required. There’s no rest in this law, only a treadmill of works they know they aren’t able to meet. So, either way, they walk away from the church because…

1. They don't need it:

Our kids are smart. They picked up on the message we unwittingly taught. If church is simply a place to learn life-application principals to achieve a better life in community… you don’t need a crucified Jesus for that. Why would they get up early on a Sunday and watch a cheap knockoff of the entertainment venue they went to the night before? The middle-aged pastor trying desperately to be “relevant” to them would be a comical cliché if the effect weren’t so devastating. As we jettisoned the gospel, our students are never hit with the full impact of the law, their sin before God, and their desperate need for the atoning work of Christ. Now THAT is relevant, THAT is authentic, and THAT is something the world cannot offer.

We’ve traded a historic, objective, faithful gospel based on God’s graciousness toward us for a modern, subjective, pragmatic gospel based upon achieving our goal by following life strategies. Rather than being faithful to the foolish simplicity of the gospel of the cross we’ve set our goal on being “successful” in growing crowds with this gospel of glory. This new gospel saves no one. Our kids can check all of these boxes with any manner of self-help, life-coach, or simply self-designed spiritualism… and they can do it more pragmatically successfully, and in more relevant community. They leave because given the choice, with the very message we’ve taught them, it’s the smarter choice.

Our kids leave because we have failed to deliver to them the faith “delivered once for all” to the church. I wish it wasn’t a given, but when I present law and gospel to these kids, the response is the same every time: “I’ve never heard that.” I’m not against entertaining our youth, or even jumbotrons, or pizza parties (though I probably am against middle aged guys trying to wear skinny jeans to be “relevant).. it’s just that the one thing, the MAIN thing we’ve been tasked with? We’re failing. We’ve failed God and we’ve failed our kids. Don’t let another kid walk out the door without being confronted with the full weight of the law, and the full freedom in the gospel.
_________________________________

Sound familiar? It sure does. Pizza Parties, Sunday School Outings, Youth Retreats, Conferences, and any social gatherings have taken precedent within the church. At the end of the liturgy the announcements stress the social gatherings and in passing mention the different liturgies for the week. An interesting point that the church has in relation with modernity is not based on the church accepting modernity but rather we (humanity) have gone through modernity. The church has never gone through modernity and it will never need to go through modernity. We defend the church everyday against modernity (tradition-παραδόσεος) because the church has always taught us the importance of tradition. Our faith has bestowed life in tradition. The problem today is that humanity has gone through modernity-modernity being a selfish, egotistic, individualistic, capitalistic pursuit for happiness in life.        

These points makes sense because in summing them all up if liturgy and prayer are reduced (reductionism), not lived out and not witnessed by the community then the church will become relevant (attract people by any modern means ie. it's a show; come and we will feed you show you a few clips), people will not go, get smart, send people out (the church) not knowing and understanding what the church is, water down church talks and reducing God to being "good as he comforts us when we are feeling down", community becomes what people commit to outside of the church, etc. By reducing the church to a set of mere activities the church losses people in between the cracks of the church. Slowly but surely the community begins to diminish and it is only after a while do people notice that many members of the community are missing. Community, liturgy and prayer are meant to be experienced and lived out constantly. How can this be achieved if people are not going?

Patriarch John (the 10th) of Antioch stresses the points that the life of the community in rooted in love and by letting love grow in the hearts of everyone then this is when everyone will "attend" because church will become life for everyone not asking questions and speaking gossip instead church will become the means of life experiencing Christ in his fullness of the image and His likeness.

Patriarch John of Antioch said the following: 

"In order for a Christian to accomplish his mission inside society, he needs first to accept and love this society, even if it contains dangerous trends, even if it is corrupt and evil, and even if its values conflict with the Christian conscience."

"liturgy is not a rigid thing to be repeated unconsciously. It is an expression of the human need to talk to the Lord, and to thank Him for His grace. Liturgy is spirit and life running through the veins of the body of the Church, and nurturing all its members. It revives the Church, the community and the individuals with the grace that is bestowed upon it. Hence, we are here before a precious gem. We should polish it and reveal its glorious face, stressing the essence of the liturgical practice which leads the believer to grow in Christ. It is therefore important to resort to all tools that enable the people to reach the depth of this inspiring liturgy, that they may take from it that which will help them attain salvation and understanding of the mystery of God.

We are aware of the fact that ritual services and sacramental life are important in our parishes. Performing these services, unifying the forms and developing chanting play a special and basic role in harmonizing between the liturgical practice and the pastoral reality. Activating the pastoral aspect of Liturgy can increase the religious awareness and deepen the relationship between the created beings and the Creator. This is realized by making the language understandable to the people, and by restoring the pastoral liturgical order which takes into consideration the particular needs of parishes and the necessity of sanctifying time in a world of drastic changes. We should also restore the pastoral dimension of all sacramental practices in order that these practices may become the center of the life of the believing community, not merely as passing practices of individuals."